PC Leadership Race- Redford wins.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The WRA is definitely strongly fiscally conservative, and social conservative to a lesser extent.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37258476/W...-Policies-2010

Which parts of their platform do you find extreme on the social conservate side? III.A.1 where they talk about full funding for arts, music, and physical education? How about V.A.6 where they want to fully fund a mental health initiative? (Huge potential benefits related to poverty and homelessness) How about V.C.23 where they talk about extending prescription benefits to those in palliative and homecare? Or maybe VII.C.8 where they talk about increasing transition support for those fleeing from domestic violence?

As for the 'gotcha' media. Sometimes it's just easier to be able to classify and rank a political party on a 2 dimentional scale from one side to another for reference purposes than to actually learn about their policies and actually digest and report on what's actually happening.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

If you got a couple of beers in them around the campfire, their true feelings would come out.

The Federal Liberals tried that line of reasoning as their majority government became a minority government, which became the opposition in a minority government when became the third party in a majority government, bordering on obscurity.

Scare tactics only work for so long before the public stops paying attention.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The WRA is definitely strongly fiscally conservative, and social conservative to a lesser extent.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37258476/W...-Policies-2010

Which parts of their platform do you find extreme on the social conservate side? III.A.1 where they talk about full funding for arts, music, and physical education? How about V.A.6 where they want to fully fund a mental health initiative? (Huge potential benefits related to poverty and homelessness) How about V.C.23 where they talk about extending prescription benefits to those in palliative and homecare? Or maybe VII.C.8 where they talk about increasing transition support for those fleeing from domestic violence?

In that case, what separates them from the Liberals? The Liberals are fiscally conservative (and I doubt you could find a politician who won't claim this!).

But honestly, what puts the WRA to the right of the others?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Who is 'everyone else'?, and no there hasn't been a move left since 2006. If the PCs had sold many more memberships than the 2006 race and elected someone like Redford, then maybe that arguement might have traction. It's obvious old PC voters are either staying home or part of another party (and judging by the interest paid to the Liberal leadership race it isn't them!). Your 'Hunt for a Red October' might have to wait yet another 5 years!

I meant "everyone else" in terms of the media and seemingly widely held ideas that the Wildrose party is further right than the PCs. I think that some have noted (with glee!) that everytime the government changes in Alberta the replacement is further right...

[SebC]

Must... not... make... thread... circular...



==============================

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

They [the PCs] should just change their name to the progressive party of Alberta.

Except they're not really progressive either.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

So everyone else has it wrong and they are misrepresented? Must be that darn "gotcha" media here to. Regardless though,my question still stands. Couldn't it be that quite a few more people identify with a more centrist view these days as opposed to 2006?

Posters in this thread have been challenged to find the so-called socially conservative 'platform' that the WRA has. They haven't come up with anything. Why? Because it doesn't exist.

As for being more centrist, I'm not even sure what the hell that is supposed to mean. Is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal a centrist? Or is he on the far right? Because I identify with that crowd, as does the WRA, and you're sure as hell not saying they are centrist. You and 'everyone else' is trying to paint them as far right lunatics.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

In that case, what separates them from the Liberals? The Liberals are fiscally conservative (and I doubt you could find a politician who won't claim this!).

But honestly, what puts the WRA to the right of the others?

They're not called the Liberals.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

I meant "everyone else" in terms of the media and seemingly widely held ideas that the Wildrose party is further right than the PCs. I think that some have noted (with glee!) that everytime the government changes in Alberta the replacement is further right...

I've certainly mentioned that before, with one key difference. Every new gov't in Alberta has been perceived to be further to the right. The political spectrum isn't a hard and fast "you're 32 degrees left" or whatever. Different people and parties have different views on different issues, and things are too nuanced for a one-dimensional spectrum.

The Wild Rose party is made up of people, and it's people who believe the current PCs have been running the province like a bunch of drunken sailors. Spending has been rising at an unsustainable rate, and they've generally proved to be pandering idiots. (See royalty review).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Azure

They're not called the Liberals.

The Alberta Party had that idea too. Personally, I'm not sure why the existing Liberal Party didn't change it's name in Alberta for provincial elections 15 years ago. The Liberal name is so tarnished as to be unelectable in this province, no matter what platform or leader they come up with.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Azure

Posters in this thread have been challenged to find the so-called socially conservative 'platform' that the WRA has. They haven't come up with anything. Why? Because it doesn't exist.

As for being more centrist, I'm not even sure what the hell that is supposed to mean. Is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal a centrist? Or is he on the far right? Because I identify with that crowd, as does the WRA, and you're sure as hell not saying they are centrist. You and 'everyone else' is trying to paint them as far right lunatics.

I suspect the consensus political view in Alberta is moving more that way. Still fiscally conservative, but much more socially centrist/liberal. Basically, people want the gov't to stay out of their bank accounts and bedrooms.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I've certainly mentioned that before, with one key difference. Every new gov't in Alberta has been perceived to be further to the right. The political spectrum isn't a hard and fast "you're 32 degrees left" or whatever. Different people and parties have different views on different issues, and things are too nuanced for a one-dimensional spectrum.

The Wild Rose party is made up of people, and it's people who believe the current PCs have been running the province like a bunch of drunken sailors. Spending has been rising at an unsustainable rate, and they've generally proved to be pandering idiots. (See royalty review).

I don't know what you do, but I get the impression you work in finance somewhere, so let me ask you this. I think we can agree to accept that since 2008 (1/2 way through or so) the economy has been recessed and government revenues have dropped. From there it makes sense that as things recover government revenues will follow suit...there is evidence to that end as we speak.

So if the revenues get to the point where we are again running a balanced budget and have no debt in Alberta (which isn't exactly pie in the sky forecasting) would you change your position that the spending is out of control?

I'll lay my cards on the table first. I'm not terribly pleased with how the money has been spent. Even given that though a lot of the WRA/WAP or whatever they're going on this week strikes me as sort of flavour of the month. Its basically predicated on the recession and those conditions continuing ad infinitum. Its basically a "we can't afford it" line, which is fine when times are tough...but does that hold as times improve?

[GP_Matt]

Over the last 5 years GOA spending has grown by about 8% per year. That growth is unsustainable.
My concern is that they seem to spend up to their limit during boom times and refuse to slow down during a bust. As soon as things slowed down we started to hear about the possibility of PST to help balance the budget. If they got a tax increase in during slow times I am certain they would continue to spend it during good times. What happens the next time things slow down?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know what you do, but I get the impression you work in finance somewhere, so let me ask you this. I think we can agree to accept that since 2008 (1/2 way through or so) the economy has been recessed and government revenues have dropped. From there it makes sense that as things recover government revenues will follow suit...there is evidence to that end as we speak.

So if the revenues get to the point where we are again running a balanced budget and have no debt in Alberta (which isn't exactly pie in the sky forecasting) would you change your position that the spending is out of control?

I'll lay my cards on the table first. I'm not terribly pleased with how the money has been spent. Even given that though a lot of the WRA/WAP or whatever they're going on this week strikes me as sort of flavour of the month. Its basically predicated on the recession and those conditions continuing ad infinitum. Its basically a "we can't afford it" line, which is fine when times are tough...but does that hold as times improve?

I work in oil and gas, finance is just an interest. I might make a career transition at some point.

I would of course stipulate that the economy has been bad, and that revenues are likely to increase. Oilsands projects are starting to reach payout, which will cause an increase to non-renewable resource revenues. I'd like to think the WRA is more nuanced than that, and that the idea is "we should only spend money we need to spend, and spend it smartly" rather than "we can't afford it." That's my opinion, but I'm not directly affiliated with the party in any way, so can only go by what I've read in the policy documents.

Ultimately, per capita government spending in Alberta is much higher than other provinces. Per capita program spending was $10,431 in 2009, compared to $7264 in Ontario and $9270 in Quebec.* Some of that difference is due to past success. Because we spend less on debt, we have more for other spending. I think we should be able to at least hold the line on spending, limiting it to population growth/inflation.

The Wild Rose party may go the way of other "protest" parties (Alberta Separatists, etc) or it may go the way of the federal Reform party. The next election is likely to be decisive on that score, imo.


*http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/file...icy/albsp2.pdf Numbers from 2009 were all I could find

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I work in oil and gas, finance is just an interest. I might make a career transition at some point.

I would of course stipulate that the economy has been bad, and that revenues are likely to increase. Oilsands projects are starting to reach payout, which will cause an increase to non-renewable resource revenues. I'd like to think the WRA is more nuanced than that, and that the idea is "we should only spend money we need to spend, and spend it smartly" rather than "we can't afford it." That's my opinion, but I'm not directly affiliated with the party in any way, so can only go by what I've read in the policy documents.

Ultimately, per capita government spending in Alberta is much higher than other provinces. Per capita program spending was $10,431 in 2009, compared to $7264 in Ontario and $9270 in Quebec.* Some of that difference is due to past success. Because we spend less on debt, we have more for other spending. I think we should be able to at least hold the line on spending, limiting it to population growth/inflation.

The Wild Rose party may go the way of other "protest" parties (Alberta Separatists, etc) or it may go the way of the federal Reform party. The next election is likely to be decisive on that score, imo.


*http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/file...icy/albsp2.pdf Numbers from 2009 were all I could find

I'm not going to dispute the numbers and the per capita spending you quoted is probably right. But why shouldn't the government spend more per capita? We don't have the debt issues that those other provinces have, and we all know that we want more services.

I guess I can't really argue with the "spend what we need to spend and spend it smartly" tactic....except that it doesn't mean anything. Its just rhetoric. The only thing that I've read that shows any change was the alternative budget they released this spring, and frankly that was a joke.

If people had complaints about the PC budget (and they did) thats nothing compared to what the WRA was proposing. We're talking about spending that couldn't even keep up to the very small amount of inflation that we had/have. Its one thing to say that you're a fiscal conservative but entirely another to push todays problems further down the road because you want to score a few political points.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Over the last 5 years GOA spending has grown by about 8% per year. That growth is unsustainable.
My concern is that they seem to spend up to their limit during boom times and refuse to slow down during a bust. As soon as things slowed down we started to hear about the possibility of PST to help balance the budget. If they got a tax increase in during slow times I am certain they would continue to spend it during good times. What happens the next time things slow down?

What happens if the growth in spending levels off though? Again this is just looking at whats taken place recently and projecting it forever; trees don't grow to the sky.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

If people had complaints about the PC budget (and they did) thats nothing compared to what the WRA was proposing. We're talking about spending that couldn't even keep up to the very small amount of inflation that we had/have. Its one thing to say that you're a fiscal conservative but entirely another to push todays problems further down the road because you want to score a few political points.

No government ever manages to cut as much spending as they say they will. The nature of the beast is that people defend their vested interests bitterly. If they propose a flat budget before they're in office, it'll grow by inflation just on inflation indexed union contracts and escalation of construction prices.

I'm not in favour of stopping government spending, as underinvestment in the 1990s really hurt the province (blowing up hospitals, no new LRT, etc) My biggest political problem with the current government is they appear to have no direction, and seem untrustworthy. The PCs have been in power long enough, and the WR party seems like the best alternative.

I'll give you one example of "smart spending of only the money we need." I mentioned before that the WR party's platform had a line item for a fully funded mental health initiative. If that is thoughtfully designed, it could help a lot of people, and reduce the burden of homelessness on our social system, saving the government in the long run. While I'm not naive enough to imagine that will solve the problem, it's a start. It's also better than Stelmach declaring he'll end homelessnes. Really Ed? How are you planning to do that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

No government ever manages to cut as much spending as they say they will. The nature of the beast is that people defend their vested interests bitterly. If they propose a flat budget before they're in office, it'll grow by inflation just on inflation indexed union contracts and escalation of construction prices.

I'm not in favour of stopping government spending, as underinvestment in the 1990s really hurt the province (blowing up hospitals, no new LRT, etc) My biggest political problem with the current government is they appear to have no direction, and seem untrustworthy. The PCs have been in power long enough, and the WR party seems like the best alternative.

I'll give you one example of "smart spending of only the money we need." I mentioned before that the WR party's platform had a line item for a fully funded mental health initiative. If that is thoughtfully designed, it could help a lot of people, and reduce the burden of homelessness on our social system, saving the government in the long run. While I'm not naive enough to imagine that will solve the problem, it's a start. It's also better than Stelmach declaring he'll end homelessnes. Really Ed? How are you planning to do that?

We probably don't even disagree on much here. Its just that I'm not sold on the Wildrose as some great panacea to fiscal restraint and conservatism. I think that they got lucky in terms of timing and the recession and its easy to take shots at the current government at this point. No government can entirely stop a recession from having any effect, so no matter what they do you either (a) promise you would've done more and avoided the pain entirely or (b) say the government did too much and that this has prolonged the pain.

Its a good political strategy, but isn't enough for me to give them a vote.

[GP_Matt]

One of the WAP policies that I like is trying to stop out of budget spending. I don't have it in front of me but the gist is that the government can't spend money that wasn't allocated in the budget without cutting that spending from somewhere else in the budget. A lot of non-budgeted spending comes off as vote buying.

[Azure]

Yet you haven't been able to actually attack them on any of their policies. You just keep saying you're not sold on them.

Maybe you're a bit cynical, so as not to expect that a new party can jump into the game and actually be fiscally conservative, while at the same time spending money on mental health to help a certain group of people who really need it. I get that.

But, that isn't any different from screaming 'hidden agenda.' At the end of the day, the WR Party has a pretty remarkable platform, and IMO they are the best direction for Alberta to go.

They are adding a voice to the discussion that needs to be heard. Alberta is not on a sustainable path, and its better that the problems get fixed before it becomes an even bigger problem.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

We probably don't even disagree on much here. Its just that I'm not sold on the Wildrose as some great panacea to fiscal restraint and conservatism. I think that they got lucky in terms of timing and the recession and its easy to take shots at the current government at this point. No government can entirely stop a recession from having any effect, so no matter what they do you either (a) promise you would've done more and avoided the pain entirely or (b) say the government did too much and that this has prolonged the pain.

Its a good political strategy, but isn't enough for me to give them a vote.

That's all fair enough, and I think your right about us not disagreeing on most things. But fiscal restraint is important to me, so who else am I going to vote for? None of the left wing parties are credible on that front either, imo, and the PCs are dynastic and complacent. By process of elimination, that leaves me at the Wild Rose.